Snow Scenes December 2009

Ahhhh, you gotta love it. Hambleden in the snow. Happy boys, a day of sledging ahead. Picture postcard scenes. This is what winter should be like.

Hambleden Church from the playroom window.

Harry and Ben ready for action (and happy)

The Old Bakery looking quaint in the snow

Fingers crossed for more snow today and tonight. Happy Christmas one and all.

What’s the buzz about buzz monitoring?

I was quoted this week in PR Week postulating on the importance and usage of online social media monitoring off the back of a report that said 46% of respondents did not use reputation or 'buzz' monitoring tools to discover what was being said about their brand on the web. And having reviewed three such systems very recently, I have to say I am not surprised.

While there is no doubting the importance of monitoring online reputation, the experience of reviewing left me wondering how ‘market-ready’ the technology for measuring the ‘buzz’ really is. It’s true to say that all of the various methods, algorithms, charting and analysis approaches failed to meet expectations. As might be expected, there were high points and low points in each firm’s offer but overall, the reviewing panel was left confused at best and disillusioned at worst. We were left wanting more. So were we being too idealistic or is the discipline of buzz monitoring not yet up to scratch?

There seemed to be a lack of consistency in definition for example. One of the firms (who shall remain nameless) contradicted itself when it came to defining the difference between a blog and an online media site. A certain advanced analytical service also failed to convince when its algorithm for ranking influence and popularity was challenged. And while accepting that sentiment measurement will always be less than accurate due to the inability of machines to understand irony, the results, when examined closely, seemed inconsistent.

So is the science of buzz monitoring realistic or should we as PR practitioners reset our hopes and expectations? Without doubt, elements of each service we saw had merit. The workflow functionality that allows customer complaints on social media sites to be routed to appropriate people for action was compelling. This is an accepted approach practised by many large and enlightened companies today. It was also interesting to see what sites and individuals ranked as influential, even if the underlying methodology caused some consternation and debate among the panel.

There can be no doubting the importance of monitoring what’s being said about a brand online. There have been too many examples, all well documented, of customer or brand crisis starting from the humble beginnings of a disgruntled individual. But as one member of the panel observed, is the integrity of the data that is produced by these systems robust enough to base critical decisions on? Many brands today do just that. But what of the more cautious brands out there? Can they / should they trust the data? Is it a case of information overload given the huge volume of chatter out there in the online world?

I think as with all these things, the data is only as good as the eventual human interaction in terms of the final interpretation. And as with all research, the end result can always be manipulated to say what the user wants it to. So I went away from the sessions with a mixture of excitement and trepidation. Excitement at the potential to monitor, harness and possibly leverage the chatter for the benefit of my client’s reputation but trepidation at the risk of misinterpretation, inaccuracies and dare I say it, inexperience that could lead to wrong decisions being made.

So the research quoted in PR Week for once is probably accurate. I can well understand the reluctance of clients to spend on this area given it is an inexact science. But equally I can see, as Will McInness asserts in the same PR Week article, that through 2010, the importance of monitoring will grow. So let’s measure adoption in a year’s time and see if the technology is ready and more importantly if more brands are using it.

Many a true word said in jest.....LinkedIn Spoof

LinkedIn.  We all use it.  Some of us more than others.  So does watching this make you feel uncomfortable?  Does it strike a chord?  Are we LinkedIn for the sake of it?

COI Takes Lead On Measurement

The measurement debate rumbles on with the announcement this week of a review undertaken by the Central Office of Information (COI). It has carried out research that moves the AVE metric to one side, preferring instead to develop a cost of impact metric. This moves the debate in the right direction but is still not the answer.

Cost of impact, as defined by the COI, is the amount spent on PR divided by impact. Impact is the number of times the article is seen (reach multiplied by opportunities to see).

The approach interests me on a couple of levels:

1. Cost: Clients are still very reluctant to either allocate a portion of retainer to measurement or to find additional budget for the service. And let's be honest, simple reporting can eat into already tight budgets. Add in a method that relies on several different quantitative metrics and you start to starve the budget of proactive campaign work (unless you swallow a bitter pill and provide it as part of client service). I wonder if the COI will increase budgets to accommodate the new method?

2. Availability: The quantitative metrics are all well and good in a traditional media world where circulation can be audited or where position of the page can be accurately mapped. But where does the COI intend to find accurate and consistent date on the % of target audience reached? Or the reach, impact and influence of blogs for that matter? The data is available, but not easily or cheaply obtained. For a standard method to be adopted industry wide, we need to agree on highly available, accurate input data. Perhaps this is one for the analysis firms to worry about?

3. Relevance: The debate still seems to revolve around media relations. All when and good when you are generating thousands of pages of column inches but not so great if you are trying to influence the influencers through social media. I'm left to wonder whether the COI is taking a similar lead in recommending a consistent methodology for measurement in this area?

It's not all critical. The COI has at least taken a leadership position and managed to agree among its own internal stakeholders/clients a standard approach that moves away from the dreaded and outdated AVE method (no mean feat in my opinion). It also provides those of us not working as part of the COI roster with some best practice on which we can base our own recommendations. The work of the COI sounds thorough, well considered and ultimately of use to the 'big client' -- the Government. It's not the silver bullet for the remainder of the industry but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

Lest We Forget -- Shared Dignity

Pride and grief seem to be very common themes in our news media these days.  As we count the bodies home from Afghanistan, I am very moved by the dignity shown by the wives, mothers, fathers and relatives of the victims of the conflict. 

Christina Schmidt, the widow of bomb disposal expert Olaf Schmidt personifies this with her comments in the news today:  "I am very pleased to have my husband home, he is an absolute hero..... He was a very brave man, there was no other man above him, I am so proud of him" 

This level of dignity is something that those of us not directly affected by death and tragedy in Afghanistan might find hard to understand.  But is it this spirit and moral fibre that supports the troops still out in theatre.  And as a nation, we have to share this dignity and show our unstinting support for what they are trying to achieve.  We must do this regardless of our political beliefs; our religious persuasions; or our own circumstances. 

As we stand in silence on Sunday, I am sure the nation will reflect on the sacrifice made by heroes like Olaf Schmidt and place them in our memories.  This year, more so than for a generation, we must remember them.

reBlog from socialwebschool.com: What You Need to Know About the new FTC Rules for Bloggers

One of my favourite sources of information on social media published a great post today on the US FTC rules on online endorsement.  Made me wonder which quango in the UK will look into similar legislation in this country.  Will it be OFCOM, Advertising Standards, Broadcasting Standards etc?  And when will the UK catch up with the US in terms of knowledge and appreciation of the online endorsement issue?  Perhaps it's a case (or an opportunity) for the PR industry to lobby for appropriate and sensible controls to be considered?  After all, we are part of the problem so we should offer up the solution.

Here's an extract from the blog post by Kara Smith on Social Web School

The rules governing how marketers disclose reimbursement for their online content are about to change.   Beginning on December 1, 2009, the new FTC rules on endorsements and testimonials in marketing will become effective, and all of us online content writers who review products and services are going to have to disclose the receipt of free merchandise or payment for the items we write about.  You can be fined up to $11,000 for not disclosing that you were compensated for an endorsement.socialwebschool.com, What You Need to Know About the new FTC Rules for Bloggers, Nov 2009

You should read the whole article.

BBC Question Time, Nick Griffin & the 'Art' of Ambush

OK, so not an ambush because Griffin must have known what he was letting himself in for. But nevertheless, I’m intrigued and not a little concerned to see some senior journalists openly question the BBC for its handling of the one-sided edition of QT last Thursday.

Putting aside the question of whether or not the BBC was right to give the BNP a platform (I think it was right in the interests of true free speech), the manner in which the ‘debate’ was orchestrated was nothing short of brutal. Many will argue that Griffin and the BNP deserved such as ambush. Five panellists and a chairman, all of who likely colluded on the strategy for the debate, facing down the demonised outsider. But has the strategy backfired?

Rather than provide the BNP and Griffin with another platform on which to generate publicity, would it not have been better to expose his views through honest, balanced and less sensationalist means? Turning the entire programme into an attack on the BNP was, in my opinion counter-productive. The four other panellists were more than intellectually capable of demolishing Griffin and exposing his party’s warped ideology for what it really is.

But as a result of the format of the programme, the debate has now taken some interesting turns with commentators looking at how the whole affair was managed. When individuals of the calibre of Sue MacGregor ask the question and make the front pages of the Sunday newspapers, then surely the BBC have succeeded in handing the BNP an ill-deserved victory?

So while I applaud the BBC for having the strength to invite Griffin onto Question Time, I have to express some dismay at its handling of the situation. As communicators, one would expect the BBC to understand the psyche of its public and to appreciate the British spirit of fair play. Clearly however, the BBC underestimated the mood and has succeeded in only prolonging the BNP’s 15minutes of fame.

A thoroughly good use of Twitter

I've not come across this before. Twibbon.com, a small utility that allows you to show your support for a cause by adding a 'ribbon' onto your piccie or avatar on Twitter. I'm impressed with this and particularly pleased that the Royal British Legion has embraced it as part of this year's Poppy Appeal. And hopefully it will also appear on this blog.

This year especially, we should all wear our poppies with pride given the sacrifice our boys and girls are making over in Afghanistan. Adding this into our web world is a smart move in raising awareness by the Legion. Good work.